Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Thread


JohnnyU

Recommended Posts

Just now, Skoo said:

It's only a problem if you let the GOP dictate what issues the Democrats support.

I refuse to let them dictate my vote.

If we wait until the GOP is on board with climate change to do anything about it, we might as well just kiss the earth goodbye.

The New Green Deal, as written, is not a plan to deal with climate change. It’s a wish list, and by your comment (“I will never vote for anyone who opposes it”) you’re trying to make it a litmus test for Democrats. You ARE letting the Republicans dictate your vote, IMO. 

I agree that we can’t wait for the GOP. But we can and should wait for centrist Democrats and independents and thoughtful people from every POV who should have some say in this matter. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, IvanKaramazov said:

True, but thanks to AOC they don't have to resort to ridiculous mischaracterizations.  They can just quote her own policy paper.

Lifting lighthearted comments about the impact of air travel and cow farts on emissions targets out of the policy paper and imagining them to be serious proposals to ban such things is a ridiculous mischaracterization in my book.  But again, it doesn't really matter how much truth there is in what they say; they'll say it regardless.

And then it will be quickly buried in the news cycle by the next Trump absurdity.  And right on cue ... here comes a long, painful public debate about an absurd national emergency declaration.  Bye for now, Green New Deal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, timschochet said:

I agree that we can’t wait for the GOP. But we can and should wait for centrist Democrats and independents and thoughtful people from every POV who should have some say in this matter. 

 It's been what, 30 years now?

I'm done waiting for idiots to come around on settled science.

Someone has to do it. 

Now.

Edited by Skoo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, IvanKaramazov said:

How this will play out is all pretty predictable.  Schumer will try to frame the issue as a broad, general recognition that we need to do something about climate change with details to be developed later.  Republicans, on the other hand, will read aloud from AOC's FAQ on the Senate floor, turning the discussion toward income support for people unwilling to work, high speed rail, and farting cows.  You can't blame Schumer for trying to do some damage control here -- he's playing the hand he was dealt -- but AOC really handed the Republicans a gift here. 

I disagree.  This is going to end up a disastrous own-goal for the Republicans.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, TobiasFunke said:

Are you suggesting that Republicans won't run ridiculously dishonest ads that unfairly disparage Dems for their words and actions unless the Dems vote to support the Green New Deal?

If so, a counterpoint:

[gestures at basically everything the Republican party has said and done over the last three years]

 

Absolutely not. I am not sure why you would conclude that. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, parasaurolophus said:

I doubt it. You are making the mistake of looking at it through your eyes. You need to look at it from the viewpoint of somebody that can be influenced by the charade. 

The tv ads that would be played are fairly predictable. "Candidate x voted to eliminate air travel and declared war on cows"

http://climatecommunication.yale.edu/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/Green-New-Deal-December-2018-1.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, parasaurolophus said:

That was before cowfartgate. 

I know.  But I don't believe it's going to pan out the way the GOP thinks it is.

Precisely because the "cowfartgate" label isn't going to actually make people change their minds.

New poll: https://www.businessinsider.com/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-green-new-deal-support-among-americans-poll-2019-2

Edited by Henry Ford
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Henry Ford said:

Beat me to the punch by 3 minutes!

Headline: More than 80% of Americans support almost all of the key ideas in Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s Green New Deal

Let's stop acting like this is some radical stuff only the crazy progressives support. That's exactly what the GOP is trying to push, @timschochet

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, parasaurolophus said:

Absolutely not. I am not sure why you would conclude that. 

Because here you seemed to be suggesting that ridiculous, unfair ads will be enabled by or dependent upon the debate and vote over the green new deal.  Trumps' GOP will generate ridiculous, unfair ads and lines of attack no matter what any Dem does over the next two years.

Dems in the House could exempt coal-fired plants from the Clean Air Act, pass a resolution praising Trump for withdrawing from Paris, and wear t-shirts every day saying global warming is hoax invented by the Chinese, and Trump and the GOP would still attack them as wild-eyed tree-huggers who want to close every factory in America. It doesn't matter what they say and do. In some sense it's freeing. If they're gonna call you a progressive extremist regardless, might as well be one.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

From the poll linked above:

87.6% of respondents said it was somewhat, very, or extremely important that the federal government invest in infrastructure designed to build resilience against climate-change-related disasters.

87.2% of poll respondents said it was somewhat, very, or extremely important that the US meet 100% of its power demands through renewable or zero-emission energy sources; 12.7% said this goal was either not so important or not at all important.

86% of those polled said it was important that the federal government enact policies aimed at achieving net-zero greenhouse-gas emissions (which would mean no added carbon dioxide in the atmosphere).

Support for improving the energy efficiency of new and existing buildings was particularly high at 89%.

And 87.5% of respondents said it’s important that both manufacturing and agricultural businesses and industries be required to be as emission-free as technologically feasible.

The resolution’s call for major investment in energy-efficient transportation was also popular, with 87.6% of those polled saying it’s important that the government invest directly in a high-speed rail system, zero-emission vehicle infrastructure, and clean public transit.

 

The people support this. Overwhelmingly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Skoo said:

Beat me to the punch by 3 minutes!

Headline: More than 80% of Americans support almost all of the key ideas in Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s Green New Deal

Let's stop acting like this is some radical stuff only the crazy progressives support. That's exactly what the GOP is trying to push, @timschochet

Again, we keep repeating the same argument; it’s exactly what we talked about with Medicare for All: when you explain things in general terms, the public likes it. The moment you get into any specific that suggests they’re going to have to pay or suffer in any way, they don’t like it. 

I hope you’re right and this backfires on the GOP. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, TobiasFunke said:

Because here you seemed to be suggesting that ridiculous, unfair ads will be enabled by or dependent upon the debate and vote over the green new deal.  Trumps' GOP will generate ridiculous, unfair ads and lines of attack no matter what any Dem does over the next two years.

Dems in the House could exempt coal-fired plants from the Clean Air Act, pass a resolution praising Trump for withdrawing from Paris, and wear t-shirts every day saying global warming is hoax invented by the Chinese, and Trump and the GOP would still attack them as wild-eyed tree-huggers who want to close every factory in America. It doesn't matter what they say and do. In some sense it's freeing. If they're gonna call you a progressive extremist regardless, might as well be one.

I think they will work better.

And before you get your panties too far in a bundle, i did refer to it as a charade. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Skoo said:

Beat me to the punch by 3 minutes!

Headline: More than 80% of Americans support almost all of the key ideas in Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s Green New Deal

Let's stop acting like this is some radical stuff only the crazy progressives support. That's exactly what the GOP is trying to push, @timschochet

It’s debatable whether her proposal is feasible, but it’s undeniable that our “practical” approach isn’t working. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, timschochet said:

Again, we keep repeating the same argument; it’s exactly what we talked about with Medicare for All: when you explain things in general terms, the public likes it. The moment you get into any specific that suggests they’re going to have to pay or suffer in any way, they don’t like it. 

I hope you’re right and this backfires on the GOP. 

Ah yes, people in this country want things but don’t want to pay for them. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, IvanKaramazov said:

How do income guarantees for people unwilling to work poll?

 

Quote

Seventy-eight percent said a federal jobs guarantee was important. And 69.8% somewhat approved, approved, or strongly approved of the government providing all Americans with high-quality healthcare, affordable housing, economic security, healthy and affordable food, and a clean environment.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Maurile Tremblay said:

Seriously, Republicans, cow farts???

Especially since anyone under-30 has grown up with a general understanding of the fact that methane is the most destructive greenhouse gas and the fact that regulation and reduction of agricultural methane would do more for the environment than we can possibly do using carbon-based fuel reduction until we find truly abundant renewable energy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, lod001 said:

She sure showed them. :lmao: She a complete :tfp:

How does this affect Amazon? It doesn't. How does this affect the D party: negatively.

Agree 100%.  She needs to better represent her district which would have benefitted greatly.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Skoo said:

From the poll linked above:

87.6% of respondents said it was somewhat, very, or extremely important that the federal government invest in infrastructure designed to build resilience against climate-change-related disasters.

87.2% of poll respondents said it was somewhat, very, or extremely important that the US meet 100% of its power demands through renewable or zero-emission energy sources; 12.7% said this goal was either not so important or not at all important.

86% of those polled said it was important that the federal government enact policies aimed at achieving net-zero greenhouse-gas emissions (which would mean no added carbon dioxide in the atmosphere).

Support for improving the energy efficiency of new and existing buildings was particularly high at 89%.

And 87.5% of respondents said it’s important that both manufacturing and agricultural businesses and industries be required to be as emission-free as technologically feasible.

The resolution’s call for major investment in energy-efficient transportation was also popular, with 87.6% of those polled saying it’s important that the government invest directly in a high-speed rail system, zero-emission vehicle infrastructure, and clean public transit.

 

The people support this. Overwhelmingly.

Oh come on.........Did they also poll them on whether they like their water wet?  How about whether roads should be free of potholes?   I suppose the next poll question would be do they think it's good that the sun rises every day.   These polls mean absolutely nothing.  I cant find a single person who would RATHER destroy the environment than use something cleaner and save the planet yadda yadda.  The argument, in my mind, has never been about whether people want to do these things, its more about how much they are willing to sacrifice them to get there.  So pish posh on those silly poll questions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't understand this farting cow stuff.  (I'll admit to not reading all the pages in this thread so maybe it's detailed elsewhere).

Anyway I google this and read this article: https://www.cnbc.com/2019/02/07/alexandria-ocasio-cortezs-green-new-deal-keeps-farting-cows-for-now.html

It contains this explanation:

Quote

They also aimed to have the U.S. creating "net-zero" greenhouse gases in 10 years.

Why "net zero"? The lawmakers explained: "We set a goal to get to net-zero, rather than zero emissions, in 10 years because we aren't sure that we'll be able to fully get rid of farting cows and airplanes that fast."

At the time this story was published, the FAQ page with the phrase "farting cows" appeared to have been removed from Ocasio-Cortez's website. Fox News' John Roberts reported that the language was tweaked to "emissions from cows" in an update, which also appears to have been deleted.

The cow farting part is obviously tongue in cheek.  Were people literally taking this to mean she planned to make cows stop farting in 10 years?  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Juxtatarot said:

The cow farting part is obviously tongue in cheek.    

Of course.  People are latching onto that because it's emblematic of the overall unseriousness of her proposal.  The whole thing reads like something written by a college sophomore who just tripped over the Port Huron statement.

Edit: By "the whole thing" I mean the FAQ that AOC put out.  The actual legislation is fine with me.

Edited by IvanKaramazov
Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Dickies said:

Wish more cities would stand up to corporate welfare.  

It’s a business decision.  Does the revenue from 25k new jobs out weight the tax breaks?.  According to Cuomo and his team the answer was yes but apparently aoc knows better....

Edited by stlrams
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, IvanKaramazov said:

Of course.  People are latching onto that because it's emblematic of the overall unseriousness of her proposal.  The whole thing reads like something written by a college sophomore who just tripped over the Port Huron statement.

Edit: By "the whole thing" I mean the FAQ that AOC put out.  The actual legislation is fine with me.

It reads like an internet FAQ. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, stlrams said:

It’s a business decision.  Does the revenue from 25k new jobs out weight the tax breaks?.  Accordingly to Cuomo and his team the answer was yes but apparently aoc knows better....

It was $3.4 billion in tax breaks and grants.  That's a ridiculous price tag to bring in a company.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the "farting cows" separates those who understand the issue, from those who need to catch-up.

 

"Language notwithstanding, greenhouse gas emissions from cows have a bigger environmental impact than one might expect.

Methane gas produced by bovine flatulence contributes a significant portion of the greenhouse gases contributing to global warming, according to the United Nations.

Livestock farming produces about 18 percent of all those environmentally damaging gases — and about a quarter of that chunk comes from cow farts and burps, the U.N. says."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Sinn Fein said:

I think the "farting cows" separates those who understand the issue, from those who need to catch-up.

 

"Language notwithstanding, greenhouse gas emissions from cows have a bigger environmental impact than one might expect.

Methane gas produced by bovine flatulence contributes a significant portion of the greenhouse gases contributing to global warming, according to the United Nations.

Livestock farming produces about 18 percent of all those environmentally damaging gases — and about a quarter of that chunk comes from cow farts and burps, the U.N. says."

And methane is about 80 times as damaging to global climate as CO2.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Henry Ford said:

Prove what?

Even before everything was hammered out it was announced at $3.0 billion.

Prove that 3.4b was a bad deal for New York.  You said 3.4b was ridiculous but your link indicate other areas offered more.  Why was it ridiculous?   Where’s the math showing New York was going to lose money here?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Sinn Fein said:

I think the "farting cows" separates those who understand the issue, from those who need to catch-up.

 

"Language notwithstanding, greenhouse gas emissions from cows have a bigger environmental impact than one might expect.

Methane gas produced by bovine flatulence contributes a significant portion of the greenhouse gases contributing to global warming, according to the United Nations.

Livestock farming produces about 18 percent of all those environmentally damaging gases — and about a quarter of that chunk comes from cow farts and burps, the U.N. says."

Yes.  For several reasons (cow farting among them) I think our government should provide economic incentives for us to reduce our consumption of meat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, stlrams said:

Prove that 3.4b was a bad deal for New York.  You said 3.4b was ridiculous but your link indicate other areas offered more.  Why was it ridiculous?   Where’s the math showing New York was going to lose money here?

You're going to have to define what you mean by "bad deal" and explain why you think "ridiculous" in my post means the same thing as that or "lose money."  Then I'll be happy to answer your question.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Henry Ford said:

You're going to have to define what you mean by "bad deal" and explain why you think "ridiculous" in my post means the same thing as that or "lose money."  Then I'll be happy to answer your question.

My definition of a bad deal is New York loses money.  Ridiculous to me meant you believe the tax package was too much yet other location offer more.  My point is Cuomo, del blasio and their teams spent a lot of resources, time, energy to develop this plan with the idea that the revenues from 25k jobs would ultimately offset 3.4b otherwise why do the deal?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, stlrams said:

My definition of a bad deal is New York loses money.  Ridiculous to me meant you believe the tax package was too much yet other location offer more.  My point is Cuomo, del blasio and their teams spent a lot of resources, time, energy to develop this plan with the idea that the revenues from 25k jobs would ultimately offset 3.4b otherwise why do the deal?

So what if other locations offered more?

It's ridiculous that the largest, highest-value company in the world, a company that paid zero federal profit taxes last year should get $3 billion in corporate welfare to build its headquarters in a particular location.

Much like if Jeff Bezos can't stand up to AMI, who can, if NYC can't stand up to that kind of corporate welfare, who can?

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd put myself in the pro-business camp in general, but I'm not a big fan of localities getting into bidding wars for businesses through tax incentives.  Government has to be funded and certain businesses getting financial advantages from the government vs others just doesn't seem good for competition or aggregate US tax revenue.

Question is how do areas of the country that need to attract businesses but have other inherent flaws (that in part having more businesses would solve) do that?

Also, it looks like Amazon is not leaving because they didn't get the money, they did, they are leaving because of a broader business-hostile environment.  I can't support NY on that.

 

 

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, stlrams said:

It’s a business decision.  Does the revenue from 25k new jobs out weight the tax breaks?.  According to Cuomo and his team the answer was yes but apparently aoc knows better....

I'd prefer if no city/county/state governments gave tax breaks and handouts to businesses.  Should be illegal for government to give discriminatory favors to businesses.  It's a drain on the country as a whole and a bad deal for local taxpayers.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
  • Create New...